D&D 5E "Make a Strength (History) roll."

[Bill Zebub]

Which part is common in your experience? Players coming up with non-standard Ability-proficiency combinations or players trying to game the system?

You weren’t asking me, but:
a) Non-standard ability score:skill pairings are great. Is an opposition to that what is being conveyed here?
b) I don’t see either approach encouraging their use more. If that’s what is meant by “more creativity” then I definitely disagree. What encourages their use is…encouraging their use. Once players realize that’s on the table they get more creative.

 

[Charlaquin]

I respect that but disagree. The benefits in creativity outweigh any costs in time, imo.

Why do you think announcing the creative approach after the roll is called for is more creative than doing so before? If anything, I would think it would more likely reduce creative thinking because they don’t have to come up with an approach that will allow them to apply an unorthodox skill on actions where a roll doesn’t end up being called for.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which part is common in your experience? Players coming up with non-standard Ability-proficiency combinations or players trying to game the system?

I think both @Reynard and @FitzTheRuke would feel the former is the system working as intended, and consider the latter rare.

I think the former is pretty common. I’m not sure what you mean by the latter.

 

[Maxperson]

I really like them. I’ve had players make a history constitution check to do a bit of archeological digging and then an intelligence history check to date the bracers he found then a charisma history check to sell them to a collector.

I think of it like the Story Teller system’s abilities + attributes (or what ever it’s called).

You forgot the dexterity history check to clean them properly without damaging them. That's step 2!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m starting to think the difference is between interaction with the environment as described by the DM, versus interaction with the DM to suss out how they are going to rule. And I suppose the choice between the two depends on the DM and the overall dynamic at the table.

This bit about the latter being “more creative” makes me suspect we are starting from very different experiences around the table. Which would explain why the two sides seem to have so much trouble making sense of each other.

 

[Mort]

You forgot the dexterity history check to clean them properly without damaging them. That's step 2!

I know you meant it in jest but:

I'm 100% FOR using alternate stats for ability checks;

I'm 100% AGAINST roll until you fail type challenges. For ex. to recover the document requires 4 skill checks all using different abilities and if you fail even 1 - document is destroyed - boo! That's just setting up for failure.

Now, that doesn't mean I dislike properly structured skill challenges, with possible failures, successes, success with a cost/setback etc. Those can be great.

Just a thought.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think the former is pretty common. I’m not sure what you mean by the latter.

I’ll quote your initial post (and the post it was replying to):

I think it is important to note that these situations are, by their very nature, uncommon and thus the extra negotiation will be likewise uncommon. Generally speaking i agree with them about the process, I just don't don't have any problem with allowing the player to apply some creative problem solving prior to the dice being rolled. And I think the rules support and expect that kind of thing.

Again, I disagree. In my experience it’s pretty common.

There are two ways of interpreting your statement.

One, if players are permitted to ask to add a proficiency after the DM calls for a check, it will be common for players to ask rather than to describe how they execute the task in the first place. I don’t think there is any dispute that this is the case, but @FitzTheRuke , @Reynard and me consider this a feature, not a bug, whereas you and @iserith consider this the opposite.

The second way to interpret the statement is that if players are permitted to ask to add a proficiency after the DM calls for a check, it will be common for players to game the system by “throwing everything and seeing what will stick”. In this case, I don’t think there is a dispute that this is generally negative, but there is a dispute about how common it is.

 

[iserith]

The second way to interpret the statement is that if players are permitted to ask to add a proficiency after the DM calls for a check, it will be common for players to game the system by “throwing everything and seeing what will stick”. In this case, I don’t think there is a dispute that this is generally negative, but there is a dispute about how common it is.

If the rules are interpreted the way some are looking at it (clearly I don't agree with that interpretation), then the players really aren't "gaming the system" in this instance. That interpretation means the players are not only expected to do that, but should do it since that's a reliable path to success. It would seem weird to me to write a rule the players are expected to follow, then view it as negative that they actually do it. If an interpretation of a rule is leading to a "generally negative" outcome, it starts with the interpretation in my view. The way @Charlaquin and I are looking at it, this can't actually happen.

 

[Maxperson]

I know you meant it in jest but:

I'm 100% FOR using alternate stats for ability checks;

I'm 100% AGAINST roll until you fail type challenges. For ex. to recover the document requires 4 skill checks all using different abilities and if you fail even 1 - document is destroyed - boo! That's just setting up for failure.

Now, that doesn't mean I dislike properly structured skill challenges, with possible failures, successes, success with a cost/setback etc. Those can be great.

Just a thought.

Totally agreed.

 

[Reynard]

If the rules are interpreted the way some are looking at it (clearly I don't agree with that interpretation), then the players really aren't "gaming the system" in this instance. That interpretation means the players are not only expected to do that, but should do it since that's a reliable path to success. It would seem weird to me to write a rule the players are expected to follow, then view it as negative that they actually do it. If an interpretation of a rule is leading to a "generally negative" outcome, it starts with the interpretation in my view. The way @Charlaquin and I are looking at it, this can't actually happen.

I don't think it is going to be as common a result as you seem to be saying. Players, by and large, play in good faith and aren't out to break the game and make it less fun for themselves. But many are, in my experience, kind of scattered and spontaneous. The benefit of explicitly allowing them to ask about proficiency after the roll has been called for (as, again, the rules do) is to not punish them because it took them a sec or because they missed something or because the lightbulb went on after the fact. And it allows the GM to clarify and embellish the situation as necessary. No one at the table is a computer. The creativity is the point.